People buying replacements PS3's is a much frequent occurrence then 360's. Absolutely no doubt about it. There is no way at all just as many people purchased replacement PS3's as 360's. None. It just is not how things went down. It was actually ironic as I was on some other gaming website that reported this news, either Kotaku or Polygon, and someone people started arguing about the 360 PS3 and WiiU in the comments, and two people talked about how they had to replace their 360's multiple times. This was just yesterday. I think it was Kotaku and I tried to find it again just now, but their new comments structure is just so weird. But I did find it truly funny people were still talking about it to this day. It was a seriously messed up situation.

first,you have to ask yourself why would they need to buy a replacement 360 in the first place? the RROD thing doesn't count,as Microsoft gave a 3 year warranty and anyone who had the device could get it repaired. And where is this evidence? a few people on a messageboard don't count. they could be sony or Nintendo fans pretending to have had xbox consoles. there is no proof to this.

And I actually did not cherry pick those games, they were the first 3 that popped into my head that were not FPS's. I did look up Black Ops 2, and I really do not think the numbers said destroy, I was just at work and shouldn't have even taken the time I did to write what I did. But okay, Black Ops sold 12.05 Million on the 360 and 10.05 Million on the PS3. Sure 2 million is a lot, but I do not see that as destroying when it also sold 10 million on the PS3???

2 million here, 1 million another game, another 2 million another game, another 500k, another 800k,etc... It all adds up. Go look at weekly,monthly software charts. Xbox dominates them. Yes certain individual games will have similar sales,and can be close, but im not talking individual game sales, im talking overall software sales. For example

And I really am still not getting you with the specialized software thing, and I do not think Sony makes only games for Japan, but lets pretend they do. Lets also use Uncharted 2 vs Halo 4.

Uncharted 2 for sold 6.15 Million globally. Halo 4 sold 8.11.

2 million x $60 a pop = $120 million dollars. Now add up all the other millions in other titles,and you're talking about billions and billions of dollars of revenue difference.

If what you are saying is all true, that people purchased it just as a BluRay player (which sure they did) and it is more focused for Japan, than all of that would add up to the fact the PS3 has the better attachment rate no? If less people buy the PS3 to game, and they have less consoles sold overall, wouldn't that mean they have a higher attachment rate for the games themselves if you go by percentages?It would be pretty much dead even at that point, if not to their advantage.

No, that would only be true if they were selling similar amounts of software. Since they are selling less software,the attachment rate could be similar or lower,not higher.

I think you meant 640p, which was the resolution used by games like GTAIV, Halo 3 and Black Ops 2. And with improved optimisations that trend is reversing, as Halo 4 was native 720p and Battlefield 3 was 720p (minus an 8 pixel border top and bottom). The Wii U, for all intents and purposes, has the same performance as the X360 and PS3. That's best highlighted by the Wii U version of Black Ops 2, which runs at 720p—rather than the 640p of the X360 and PS3 versions—but suffers from framerate drops not seen in the other versions.

Rightly or wrongly, when the vast majority of people talk about the "gen" of a console, it is mostly in relation to the console's graphics capabilities. Gimmicky new control methods don't enter into the equation. In that respect, Wii U is most definitely "current" Gen, not "next" Gen. The brand new Nintendo Wii U console barely rivals the several-years-old Xbox 360.

The current generation / next generation terminology is simply a rough measure of where each console lies in terms of power.

Current Generation / Next Generation has never been about a console's graphical capabilities, output resolution, or power. It's always been about the release of the successors, and the period of time between that. In the console market, the release of the the XBox 360 marked the end of the sixth generation (Playstation 2, XBox, and Gamecube) and the beginning for the seventh generation (Playstation 3 and Wii). As much as you don't want to admit it, the Wii U marks the end of the seventh generation, and the beginning of the eighth generation that will include the XBox Durango and the Playstation 4. That's the mainstream view on how you break down the console generations when looking at the history of video games, and it's been done this way since the early 1970s.

Current Generation / Next Generation has never been about a console's graphical capabilities, output resolution, or power. It's always been about the release of the successors, and the period of time between that. In the console market, the release of the the XBox 360 marked the end of the sixth generation (Playstation 2, XBox, and Gamecube) and the beginning for the seventh generation (Playstation 3 and Wii).

The X360 and PS3 were marketed as next generation based upon their capabilities, not their release window. The Wii wasn't marketed as next generation but rather based upon its innovative controller. The Wii marked the first time a major console manufacturer opted against major spec increases in favour of targeting the casual market, as in hardware terms it bore little relation to the competition. Next generation implies that it is beyond the last generation, which the Wii U simply isn't. I'm far from the only one who doesn't consider the Wii U to be next-gen.

Nintendo has a very different strategy to Microsoft and Sony - it simply isn't trying to compete on power or mature games, which makes comparisons more difficult.

The X360 and PS3 were marketed as next generation based upon their capabilities, not their release window. The Wii wasn't marketed as next generation but rather based upon its innovative controller. The Wii marked the first time a major console manufacturer opted against major spec increases in favour of targeting the casual market, as in hardware terms it bore little relation to the competition. Next generation implies that it is beyond the last generation, which the Wii U simply isn't. I'm far from the only one who doesn't consider the Wii U to be next-gen.

Nintendo has a very different strategy to Microsoft and Sony - it simply isn't trying to compete on power or mature games, which makes comparisons more difficult.

I think you meant 640p, which was the resolution used by games like GTAIV, Halo 3 and Black Ops 2. And with improved optimisations that trend is reversing, as Halo 4 was native 720p and Battlefield 3 was 720p (minus an 8 pixel border top and bottom). The Wii U, for all intents and purposes, has the same performance as the X360 and PS3. That's best highlighted by the Wii U version of Black Ops 2, which runs at 720p—rather than the 640p of the X360 and PS3 versions—but suffers from framerate drops not seen in the other versions.

The wii u can actually do a bit more than the 360/ps3 can. It just needs developers to actually put forth effort instead of half-assedly doing things(such as in launch day ports like CoD).

The wii u can actually do a bit more than the 360/ps3 can. It just needs developers to actually put forth effort instead of half-assedly doing things(such as in launch day ports like CoD).

And the PS3 was supposed to be more powerful than the X360 yet that never materialised. It always comes down to market realities and the poor sales figures for the Wii U certainly aren't helping things. Why would publishers put such effort into a version that, at best, might sell 1/10th the amount of the X360 or PS3?

It will sell. Just wait till some better games come out. I'm thinking of purchasing one within the next few weeks, even though I feel there aren't many great games out for it yet.

I think Wii U wasn't the greatest name for it, as others have pointed out, keeping the "Wii" name in there makes it sound like an add-on for the Wii. I've mentioned the Wii U to some people and they didn't even realize it was a new console. However, the name alone is no reason for it to not sell great.

Once some more first-party games come out, it'll be rock solid Nintendo has had major success with most of its consoles (except for the Virtual Boy - we don't talk about that).

I just have to ask, are you sure about that comment about the PS3 not being not far behind the WiiU?The speculated numbers for March, which is the article you reference above, is 211,000 for the PS3. Not been confirmed yet, but that is the rumored number. WiiU, is 67,000.Again, those numbers are not confirmed yet, but they are usually a pretty close estimate. So actually, the PS3 is not to far behind the 360.

I just do not get how XBox supporters still can sit there and make comments that the PS3 sells poorly, when global sales say the exact opposite. I know, I know, global sales do not count since the 360 is always dead last in Japan.

HAHAHA, Its funny that you say that, I think I had a little bit of a mind fart there, I was actually supposed to write Xbox not Nintendo, I also didn't mean anything by "behind" as in I think Xbox should be outselling PS3 in anyway, it was just a poor use of words!

I like to think I can have an opinion on "which console IMO is best" because I do own a PS3, Xbox 360 and a Wii (not U) and I do have my favorite out of them but I hope I don't come across as a fanboy of any console and always try to be objective.

And the PS3 was supposed to be more powerful than the X360 yet that never materialised. It always comes down to market realities and the poor sales figures for the Wii U certainly aren't helping things. Why would publishers put such effort into a version that, at best, might sell 1/10th the amount of the X360 or PS3?

Uh, it most certainly did materialise. I spent most of my gaming time on the 360 in recent years, and even I now there's nothing on the 360 that can match the prowess of first party PS3 titles like Uncharted.

Uh, it most certainly did materialise. I spent most of my gaming time on the 360 in recent years, and even I now there's nothing on the 360 that can match the prowess of first party PS3 titles like Uncharted.

Yet, the PS3 that was released was far inferior to what they were originally going to release. Mainly due to the neutering they did to the Cell processor.

They would have buyers if they would stop only making the good games on the teenie weenie eye strain o vision handhelds and make the games on the console too. This console is going to continue to do badly until it gets better and more 3rd party titles.